December 4, 2012

The results of international surveys typically aren't usually terribly plausible, but a World Values Survey on immigration ideologies in 48 countries seems likely.

A glance at the table shows there’s a moderately high correlation between holding theoretical open borders views and living in the kind of country that nobody in their right minds wants to immigrate into.

(In case you are wondering, Israel, whose government uses the term "illegal infiltrator" to describe "undocumented workers," was apparently not surveyed.)

In contrast, the ten most anti-open borders countries are ones that have a lot to lose and are in more danger of losing it.

South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan are rich, competent, nationalist NE Asian countries. Norway and Australia are rich whitopias. Trinidad is the richest country in its region due to oil, and it already has a lot of ethnic tensions that don't need augmenting. Thailand and Malaysia are among the richer countries in their regions, with poor, heavily populated neighbors such as Burma, Indonesia, and Vietnam.

Egypt and Jordan are interesting. I suspect their attitudes are similar to Israel’s, and for the same reasons.

1) None of those three countries wants the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza. They all remember what happened when Jordan kicked out the Palestinians in 1970 and they moved to Lebanon: that upset Lebanon’s delicate balance of power and 15 years of civil war ensued.

2) Egypt, Jordan, and Israel are all on the land route from sub-Saharan Africa to the rich North. They would all be overrun with sub-Saharans. Middle Easterners notice how Col. Qaddafi’s policy of inviting in large numbers of sub-Saharans did not improve his popularity with native Libyans.

89 comments:

The open borders meme is just mean ethnic politics. So you can tell by the group that pushes it the hardest that their intention with the group which is most vulnerable is really destructive.

The common thread amongst the open-borders countries you mentioned is that they probably are not able to control their borders. Most African countries for example are open to immigration. The reason is that African political systems are tribal, unlike the lies being spread by the NYT and cohorts, so borders mean nothing to them. They sort out loyalty through blood; even elections are handled that way. Fences mean nothing because all tribes are ever expanding and all property belongs to the chief anyway. But apart from that their army/police are nostly so corrupt and inefficient that they could not even control their borders if they wanted to.

"Middle Easterners notice how Col. Qaddafi’s policy of inviting in large numbers of sub-Saharans did not improve his popularity with native Libyans."

Nobody wants blacks around. In the countries where they dwell as sizable minorities they generate an outsize amount of violence and social strife -- even in unlikely immigration destinations like China! Their contribution to wealth creation is nugatory. They thrive through implicit threats of mind bending violence, individually and en mass, if host populations don't feed, cloth, house, and employ them. They have literally cost white American taxpayers trillions of dollars in welfare, education, law enforcement, and public employment obligations. And their champion in the White House will turn our entire nation into an economic basket case in less than a decade. in what amounts to a mass mugging of the white middle class.

Romania has nice scenery, a rich culture, decent educational levels, a growing economy and is a member of the European Union. And let's not forget that it is over 90 percent white, with the only non-European minorities being the gypsies.

Israel, Egypt, and Jordan are also the largest recipients of US aid in the region, far and away. It's like sitting on oil -- you get a huge steady flow of money for free, and you'd rather not have to split that pie up into smaller pieces if foreigners began flooding in.

This illustrates the principle of the 'worth of worthlessness'. Living in a place few people want to migrate to acts as an invisible shield, allowing them to continue to be who they are without being overrun by others who have no similarities to the inhabitants. The Ukraine doesn't attract very many third-worlders due to lack of available jobs or welfare for them, thus they set their sights on the brighter lights of Western Europe or the USA. One hundred years from now they'll still be overwhelmingly white and retain their culture. Living standards can always be improved upon later; they'll retain that potential. In contrast, within that same time frame, the US, Britain, etc., appear to be sliding towards being transformed into Afro-Asiatic-aborigine-Euro inhabited geographic expressions. A circus rather than a country. Success can be a curse,often carrying the kiss of death with it as the seeds of it's own downfall grow. It could have been prevented but the political class has always been shortsighted and blinded by greed.

I've been to Colonia, Uruguay, across the big river from Buenos Aires. It was nice. Back then Uruguay had a 300% tariff on cars, so most of the cars were Americans makes from the 1930s, which my father really enjoyed: a rolling museum.

Uruguay's opinion is probably explained by lingering nostalgia for the wave of migrants from Italy that turned Montevideo into a fairly sophisticated Mediterranean-style city at the turn of the 20th century.

As it is bordered by Brazialian cattle lands and Argentina and gets little migration from dubious regions, reality doesn't intrude on these pleasant memories.

This would have been my assumption, except that my friend who visited two years ago said you don't see any whites anywhere, just Indians and Indonesians, and that they're openly hostile, like blacks and latinos here. I'm wouldn't expect Steve to be uninformed, but now I'm wondering ...

India is presently constructing the Indo-Bangladeshi barrier, a 3,406 kilometres (2,116 mi) fence of barbed wire and concrete just under 3 metres high, to prevent illegal immigration and the smuggling of weapons and narcotics."

Interestingly:

"The border is used as a route for smuggling livestock, food items and drugs from India to Bangladesh. Moreover, illegal immigrants cross the border in both directions in search of improving their livelihood. Because of a large number of illegal immigrants crossing from Bangladesh into India, a controversial shoot on sight policy has been enforced by the Indian border patrols.[2][3][4] This policy was initiated with reports of violence between the illegal migrants and Indian soldiers.[5] The border has also witnessed occasional skirmishes between the Indian Border Security Force and the Border Guards Bangladesh, most notably in 2001."

" A glance at the table shows there’s a moderately high correlation between holding theoretical open borders views and living in the kind of country that nobody in their right minds wants to immigrate into.

The survey methodology is flawed. Many people, when they are asked whether they support "open borders," take the question to refer to "Western" countries.

It's a little bit how "racism" is understood. In one of its senses it is understood to really refer to bigotry by white people toward non whites.

India, by the way, ranks near the top of the survey in terms of support for "open borders." It is a population very eager to migrate to the United States. Meanwhile however, at home, Indians are building a wall around neighboring Bangladesh to keep non-Indian immigrants OUT.

[QUOTE] Their contribution to wealth creation is nugatory. They thrive through implicit threats of mind bending violence, individually and en mass, if host populations don't feed, cloth, house, and employ them. They have literally cost white American taxpayers trillions of dollars in welfare, education, law enforcement, and public employment obligations.[/QUOTE]

An American city starts to turn really ghetto when the Black population reaches a minimum of 30 percent.

That is why out of all the U.S cities where over 30 percent of the population is Black, not a single one of them is a desirable place to live.

Its very easy for a country to be pro-open borders when they know perfectly well, nobody has any desire at all to want to go their countries. They have nothing to lose from such a viewpoint. Imagine say Haiti and Switzerland signing a bilateral open-borders agreement. What Swiss in his right mind is going to want to go and immigrate to Haiti? What Haitian in his right mind isn't going to want to leave Haiti?

Switzerland and Holland are two of the most libertarian countries in the World when it comes to foreigners residing there, and they are two of the World's richest countries in terms of both GDP per capita and PPP per capita. The same goes for France. Do you have any idea of how many Frenchmen are descended of foreigners who became French citizens by naturalization? Historically, a quarter of Paris' population has been made up of foreigners. After WWII, for instance, when America was the World's undisputed economic superpower and Americans had over twice the PPP per capita of Europeans, one of the most common complains of the French is that most of the best real estate at the center of Paris wes bought by rich Americans. Did they kick the foreigners out? No.

These countries are rich because of a host of factors not related to immigration. Russia and Iran have extremely strict immigration policies, and yet they are poor, backwards societies - despite the large number of PhDs and literature Nobelists that Russia has. Having lots of immigration or not does not explain the affluence or lack thereof of these countries. Immigration CAN have some impact, but it is probably very minor and does NOT represent the biggest reason for these discrepancies.

Steve Sailer is the absolute king of half-witted analyses. He focus on some tiny variable that MIGHT be ONE factor in an extremely complicated situation and then offers that as THE explanation for all the phenomena. Then, he feels happy that his sycophants agrees with him and takes that ad populum approval is evidence that he is right. Pathetic.

Good point. This seems to include blacks themselves. Note how as soon as a black gets some measure of success (usually through athletics or entertainment venues) they almost immediately leave their 'hood' and go and live in a white area. Here in Canada, 99% white a generation ago, we now have a lot of Jamaicans. They are overtly hostile towards whites. Yet they don't even have the self-awareness to understand their own hypocrisy in moving to a country founded by the very white people they so dislike.

India believes open borders and open economies are "for me, but not for thee". Foreign nationals can't own property there and foreign companies are very restricted in what they can do (example, UK supermarkets cannot open there).

At the same time India is buying up the UK motor and steel industry, and wealthy Indians are buying up the UK Labour Party, as well as chunks of Central London.

"India is presently constructing the Indo-Bangladeshi barrier, a 3,406 kilometres (2,116 mi) fence of barbed wire and concrete just under 3 metres high, to prevent illegal immigration and the smuggling of weapons and narcotics."

In older, saner times, they would be popular destinations. People from advanced countries with healhy birthrates would be moving there to take advantage of the opportunities the natives hadn't figured - advanced mining and agriculture, for example. And they'd be ruling themselves, and mayb ruling the natives, too (most likely against their wills).

Nowadays we let them colonize us instead. That's what's called "progress."

Chicago wrote, "This illustrates the principle of the 'worth of worthlessness'. Living in a place few people want to migrate to acts as an invisible shield, allowing them to continue to be who they are without being overrun by others who have no similarities to the inhabitants."

Great point and one I have made before especially in regards to Albania and Mexico. Albanians have effectively taken Kosovo away from the Serbs through illegal immigration, and NATO air support, and they are threatening to take a piece of Macedonia too. All the while they have zero risk of losing Albania which no one, including most Albanians, wish to live.

The same can be said of Mexico. She has essentially placed 20 million of her citizens in the USA, potentially threatening some day to take over territory, while at the same time has effective control over Mexico, a country in which a majority of the locals would leave for the USA if they could.

It's unfair. It used to be a nation would have to have superior military and economic power to infringe upon its neighbors. Now it just has to be a worthless hellhole.

Australia Steve is not a Whitopia. Not any more. Its about 40% Asian IIRC, with of course a lot of Aborigines who generate a LOT of preferences for them. And it has a significant amount of Muslims, who have actually turfed out Australians from a number of beaches.

In this case, though, Whiskey may not have pulled the 40% number entirely out of his ass. He probably got it from a casual glance at this Wikipedia page, which says that, "60.2% of Australia's population declared European ancestry in the 2011 census.". But as that page notes, "Australian" was another option on the census, and ~35% of Australians picked that, many of whom [the vast majority?] were of European ancestry.

I would agree with a previous comment here, namely that some of these countries interpret the question as to *other* countries borders, not theirs. It is the case for Romania. Lots of people want to go to work in Western EU (most of them not to stay there as permanent immigrants), but some of these destination countries have some restrictions regarding Romanians (and Bulgarians). So yes, the Romanians want "open borders": for these destination countries.The sad thing, and not just for Romania but for most of the countries with lots of emigrants, is that some of their more productive members want to leave. There is indeed a "brain transfer" from less developed countries to the rich ones.And that's not good for either side of the immigration-emigration equation.

"The same goes for France. Do you have any idea of how many Frenchmen are descended of foreigners who became French citizens by naturalization? Historically, a quarter of Paris' population has been made up of foreigners."

Yes, dear boy.And those foreigners were, until recent times, largely Europeans, who completely assimilated into French society. The current crop of non-Euros are something else all together.

"Immigration CAN have some impact, but it is probably very minor and does NOT represent the biggest reason for these discrepancies."

Really, dear boy; the monstrous effects of large scale Black immigration to various New World societies (the USA, Brazil, Cuba, etc) during the heyday of slavery certainly seems to have had a deleterious effect. Why, just imagine what Brazil would be like without a sizable Black population.

For that matter, the large scale immigration of Mestizos from Mexico to the USA definitely augers ill from the standpoint of human capital.

Thanks for the tip on Uruguay! I had no idea it was possible to move there. It used to be as difficult as Argentina. Paraguay was always a possibility, but it is an extremely undesirable destination. I just might get out of here before the roof caves in. Good luck to the rest of you!

Vietnam is the #1 open borders country? You can't imagine how ironic that sounds. I guess no one crawled down a rathole at Cu Chi to ask Charlie what he thought about Vietnam crawling with foreigners. I guess it's "xin loi" Charlie, you've been replaced by a global elite.

"Really, dear boy; the monstrous effects of large scale Black immigration to various New World societies (the USA, Brazil, Cuba, etc) during the heyday of slavery certainly seems to have had a deleterious effect. Why, just imagine what Brazil would be like without a sizable Black population.

For that matter, the large scale immigration of Mestizos from Mexico to the USA definitely augers ill from the standpoint of human capital.

It's called hbd, dear boy. Look into it."

Dear girl, you are once again attacking a straw man, which seems to be a habit of yours as well as Rohan Swee's. where, oh where, did I say that immigration cannot be a factor in whether a country is afluente or not?

Steve Sailer claimed that the countries with restrictive immigration policies are the ones that are better off; I replied: not so. The evidence? There are countries that are poor with open-borders policy, yes, but there are countries that are rich with the same open-borders policy. I provided examples such as France and the Netherlands, counties which, historically, have had large numbers of foreigners residing there, and yet are rich countries.

One of the caveats of the scientific method is that a single contradiction to a theory disproves it. Logic is about the non-contradictory identification of facts.

Sailer made a claim and I pointed out a logical inconsistency in his claim. Theory disproven. The end.

Now that we have established that having open borders is neutral per se in it's effect on the affluence of a country, let's talk about immigration some more.

You keep bringing up the Mexican immigration. Are you sure the effect has been negative? Do you have any idea how much smaller America's GDP would be without the large number of Latino immigrants? the entire service sector would colapse, and the cost of living odf the middle class would skyrocket. No more eating out. No more cheap lawn mowers, etc. The net effect of the large Latino immigration CANNOT be said to be negative. Most are law-abiding and most allow the middle class to enjoy a standard of living that otherwise would be prohibitive except for the rich. Tons of Americans now have maids, for instance, something that in the 19th century only robber barons could have.

What is said about Latino immigration could be said about the Irish immigration from 1850 onward. The Irish were the garbage of Europe. They were poor, uneducated, and a lot of them were drunken brawlers who committed crime and violence. Ever seen "Gangs From New York"? So many Latino thugs in that film. No, wait...

Is América better or worse with Latino immigration? The same can be said about Irish immigration? IOs America better or worse now than before the Irish arrived? It could be better or worse, but don't try to make Latinos into monsters that will destroy América. They are not worse than countless waves of poor, uneducated immigrants that came before them.

Anyway, my whole point is that having open borders can be either good or bad economically for a country, as I have now proven. The issue is not black and White(pun intended) like Sailer makes it out to be.

You guys get owned by me over and over again. It's fun debating simpletons.

"Serbs in Kosovo beg to to differ. Americans in California most likely too. Let's not forget the original North American Natives. I could go on and on.

The massive demographic transformations taking place in the West are fairly recent and have not had time to fully take effect."

What a joke. What you are refering to is an invasion and not immigration.

As for whites in Califórnia, they don't seem to be complaining when they hire the cheap Mexican nanny. Or when they go eat out and pay less than 50% of what they would pay otherwise if the restaurant had to pay Amerian workers.

You describe the grievances of a minority of White Californians, usually lower class, who have to compete for Jobs with the cheaper Latinos and so.

For every white Califorian that doesen't want Latino immigrants, there is another who needs them and is happy they are there. And a lot of those who don't want them there only don't because they don't understand the many ways by which the immgrants benefit them.

"Is Nick Diaz a troll? Anyway I understand why a hispanic would be trying to convince a bunch of Americans that massive immigration is just a minor factor. Same old swamp land sold all over the West."

Nothing but insults and ad hominem invective, because that is all you have since you have no logical arguments to conter me.

And I NEVER said that immgration is a "minor" factor; I said it is one factor, and that you cannot infer a rule from it because the effect of immigration on diferente countries is too complex for you to say that: open borders: bad!, closed borders: good! You people should go back to seventh grade because your Reading comprehension is terrible and you keep coming up with these straw man arguments.

And FYI, my dad has pasty skin, green eyes. My sister is blond with green eyes. I have pasty skin, hazel eyes, and hair straiht as a ruler.

But yes, I am one of those "spics", as you conservative racists call us. I don't have to agree with your prejudices because we are of the same "tribe". Character is truly something individual.

Australia Steve is not a Whitopia. Not any more. Its about 40% Asian IIRC, with of course a lot of Aborigines who generate a LOT of preferences for them. And it has a significant amount of Muslims, who have actually turfed out Australians from a number of beaches.

IIRC? Come on Whiskey, don't recall, provide facts. Do you have any data that contradicts this data that took about 2 minutes to find?

Switzerland and Holland are two of the most libertarian countries in the World when it comes to foreigners residing there, and they are two of the World's richest countries in terms of both GDP per capita and PPP per capita.

That sure doesn't show up in the census. Switzerland is 93 percent German, French and Italian, while the Netherlands is 85% Dutch and other European.

There is a differnce between accepting a few foreigners in your midst versus accepting demographic demise. Most nations will take immigrants, especially talented individuals, but reject it when it becomes mass migration leading to demographic change.

As was pointed out to you in a prior post, even Mexico makes this distinction in her immigration law.

Foreigners may be denied entry for the following reasons, if: No international reciprocity, The national demographic balance is altered, It is deemed harmful to the national economic interests, he/she has violated national law or have a poor record abroad, deemed not physically or mentally healthy.

Mexico's law is not discriminatory, nor was the 1924 Immigration Act for which you seem to have a lot of contempt. There is nothing wrong with people not wanting to be displaced. In fact it seems rather healthy.

Note the title of this post contains the words 'open borders'. On this blog when the term 'open borders' is used, it does not refer to immigration. It refers to mass migration that leads to demographic change. 'Open borders' means there are limited to no restrictions on the movement of people across international lines which is something most people on this blog vigorously reject.

Yeah, whites love paying the free and reduce lunch programs for La schools, Anaheim and Santa Ana. Also, the crimes that their children do when they join gangs. Santa Ana cost Taxpayers more than Mission Viejo.

"IIRC? Come on Whiskey, don't recall, provide facts. Do you have any data that contradicts this data that took about 2 minutes to find?"

It's easy to overestimate the number of Asians and other non-Europeans in Australia when roaming the streets of Australia's largest cities (i.e. Sydney, Melbourne, Perth) as the non-whites tend to cluster in the major urban centres.

Outside of the major cities one can still find whitetopias.

Nonetheless, immigration is rapidly changing the face of Australia. And you can feel the growing resentment among white Australians.

Those poor nations are, of course, strongly in favor of open borders for other, richer nations, but not for themselves. You see it's very easy to advocate radical positions if you know full well they will never affect you (no one in their right mind would immigrate to India or Burkina Faso), but millions of Indians wish to impose themselves on the west. It's rather like that age old criticism of democracy. Inevitably the poor will vote themselves the wealth of the rich.

Actually, in the 19th century a school-teacher most likely employed a maid. - The fact that people such as school-teachers, master carpenters, phramacists etc stopped employing maids (in the early 20th century) because they couldn't afford to do so, was taken as a sign of progress, believe it or not.

As for whites in California, they don't seem to be complaining when they hire the cheap Mexican nanny. Or when they go eat out and pay less than 50% of what they would pay otherwise if the restaurant had to pay American workers.

You describe the grievances of a minority of White Californians, usually lower class, who have to compete for Jobs with the cheaper Latinos and so.

You must live in a different world than we do. In our world, the minority of whites ARE the ones who hire nannies.

I also think your math is a little off. How doess not paying a dishwasher an extra few dollars per hour result in one's meal being twice as expensive?

To illustrate let's look at the agriculture industry. We are often told that without cheap immigrant labor, our food prices would soar and people would no longer have access to affordable food. Professor Philip Martin,Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Davis, had this to say in 2006 about the cost of a head of lettuce:

So therefore, on a one-dollar head of lettuce, the farmer is getting about 17, 18 cents; the worker is getting about 6 cents. So therefore, when you think about what's going to happen to the cost of food, I mean keep in mind, if wages were zero, you would save 6 cents on a head of lettuce. So regardless of what happens, you don't eat enough lettuce to really get rich because wages are low. I mean, the reason we have low food costs is because we have high incomes and very productive land, not because wages are low.

I would imagine the restaurant industry to not be too far off from this. Dishwashers and bussboys are not the big cost drivers.

The net effect of the large Latino immigration CANNOT be said to be negative

Why not? It can be said to be negative by communities who have been overrun and changed overnight. It can be said to be negative by netting the cost of servicing the health, education, housing and other welfare needs of latino immigrants. Additionally the large presence of this cheap latino labor force will cause other problems not readily apparent.

Large amounts of cheap labor actually harm the economy because it retards innovation. In a normal, healthy economy as labor gets scarce, new technologies are invented to make labor more efficient and to make some labor redundant, freeing up that labor to enter other markets.

Had we had armies of illegals at day labor centers in the early 1960s, do you think we would have invented the Bobcat? It was because we had scarce labor, with rising wages, that a need for this vehicle evolved.

Now with all this cheap labor, sectors of our economy are actually less efficient and rely on low skilled immigrants. It is like a sugar high. It might make you feel good at first, but long term you are not as competitive. Just compare Australia and how they grow and harvest crops to the USA. We are very primitive to their highly mechanized operations.

I've never been to Uruguay, regrettably, but standing across the plata in buenos aires, my argentine friends described it as the Switzerland of Latin America, or alternatively as Scotland to their England.

Of course, South America is in a different time zone (approx 30 years behind GMT). I think Scotland could have had 'open borders' in 1980. The reality would have been: undesirables, enter at your peril.

"It's easy to overestimate the number of Asians and other non-Europeans in Australia when roaming the streets of Australia's largest cities (i.e. Sydney, Melbourne, Perth) as the non-whites tend to cluster in the major urban centres.

Outside of the major cities one can still find whitetopias."

This is essentially correct - regional and rural Australian demographics tend to be much more skewed towards people of European descent compared to urban centres. Another factor to consider is that some of these Asian people that you see in Australian cities are not actually citizens or permanent residents but are present in the country on student, tourist or work visas.

Australia is still very much a white dominated country, however I would expect the percentage of people of Asian heritage to grow significantly.

Whiskey said: "Australia Steve is not a Whitopia. Not any more. Its about 40% Asian IIRC, with of course a lot of Aborigines who generate a LOT of preferences for them. And it has a significant amount of Muslims, who have actually turfed out Australians from a number of beaches."

Australia is a Whitopia(I think) away from the bigger cities. Whiskey's 40% figure will be true soon enough. No way is the place 92 % White. They would only get that figure if they counted Middle Easterners as white. Muslims turfing Anglo-Australians from beaches? That would be the Cronulla Riots. Outcome, no loss of beaches(turf and surf).

As for whites in Califórnia, they don't seem to be complaining when they hire the cheap Mexican nanny. Or when they go eat out and pay less than 50% of what they would pay otherwise if the restaurant had to pay Amerian workers."

And heroin addicts don't complain much about heroin trafficking - that doesn't mean that it's good for them.

"And a lot of those who don't want them there only don't because they don't understand the many ways by which the immgrants benefit them."

What benefits? Huge outlays for schools and prisons. Name one benefit.

"Nothing but insults and ad hominem invective, because that is all you have since you have no logical arguments to conter me."

The logic of your arguments is pretty weak. Ultimately, your arguments employ nothing more than the logic of the rapist - it's gonna happen because I'm gonna do it.

Anyway, if you try to tell someone that he should welcome the invasion of his country and its handing over to foreigners, then you deserve to be insulted. You deserve to be insulted far more than you already have been. Try telling a guy that he should welcome his wife being violated by another man, and see whether he responds to you with calm, rational argumentation.

"But yes, I am one of those "spics", as you conservative racists call us."

Switzerland and Holland are two of the most libertarian countries in the World when it comes to foreigners residing there,..."

Horseshit. You know nothing about Switzerland. It's policies toward immigration have traditionally been quite restrictive. To even become a citizen there required years of waiting and the paying of a large fee.

"Horseshit. You know nothing about Switzerland. It's policies toward immigration have traditionally been quite restrictive. To even become a citizen there required years of waiting and the paying of a large fee.

You're just an idiot who's talking through his hat"

That's why a QUARTER of Geneva's population historically has been composed of foreigners, huh? Because their immigration policy is so RESTRICTRIVE.

For frack sake, redneck, go back to shagging your fat whore of a sister in the shithole in Alabama you came from and stfu

Somwhow I doubt that very much. Blacks produce stratospheric rates of crime, violence, illegitimacy, and general dysfunctionality everywhere they go. Blacks are about 12% of the population of greater London and commit about 50% of all crime. There have been many very serious and ugly black race-riots and looting sprees, most recently at Tottenham.

"Is América better or worse with Latino immigration? The same can be said about Irish immigration? IOs America better or worse now than before the Irish arrived? It could be better or worse, but don't try to make Latinos into monsters that will destroy América. They are not worse than countless waves of poor, uneducated immigrants that came before them."

That's why a QUARTER of Geneva's population historically has been composed of foreigners, huh? Because their immigration policy is so RESTRICTRIVE."

Geneva is but one Canton, it's not the whole country, douchebag. It also hosts a bunch of international organizations, such as the UN and CERN, which, you know, tend to attract foreigners.

Since WWII at least, Switzerland has imported guest workers, but made it very difficult for them to gain citizenship. Most swiss don't want them to either. And even then, most of these guest-workers were europeans, not third-worlders.

"For frack sake, redneck, go back to shagging your fat whore of a sister in the shithole in Alabama you came from and stfu"

"Why just imagine what Brazil would be like without a sizable black population".

Probably Costa Rica.

Costa Rica is one of the wealthiest and most peaceful countries in Latin America. It actually abolished its army as long ago as 1949. It is the only Latin American country included in the list of the world's 22 older democracies. It is a clean and safe and prosperous place. The only bad area is around Limon where most of the very few blacks in Costa Rica live. A few years ago, U.S. cruise ships stopped going there after a young black guy tried to rob at knife-point a group of elderly white tourists. The joke was on him though. One of the seniors was an ex-marine and he broke the guys neck with his bare hands.

Re: Thailand (and probably Malaysia, but I don't have as much personal knowledge of that country), the tight borders aren't just, or even mostly, to keep out the poor neighbors. Instead, they are more to keep out the rich Westerners. They have legitimate concerns that we will come in and price out the locals. This has lead to a profitable business where Thai real estate companies build huge resort developments that they hold in trust for the foreign "owners" that can't legally buy the property.

Actually, "Truth" does that all the time. Just as he routinely criticizes people for errors in grammar, despite often making such errors himself. He's a debate team geek - anything to attempt to win an argument, no matter how wrong, tangential, or irrelevant it may be. Pay him no mind. He is just the mildew that forms around the edges of this site. Anyway, there was nothing implied about anonymity in your post.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.